He knew what was going on there, he knew the risks, he's no hero in my eyes. I hope whatever he thought he was doing was important enough to scar his family forever. If he was a soldier I'd understand, then he'd have been doing his job and would have been a martyr in my eyes. We should be more like Japan and boo citizens who come back from "helping" over there. You don't walk onto a construction site to help build a house, it's not your place and you'll just get in the way of people doing their jobs.

Nick Berg was a U.S. Civilian contractor, hired by the military. He was doing his job. The military contracts civilians to do stuff all the time. Heck when I was oer there we hired locals to fill sandbags. They would fill sandbags all day long for 4 dollars a day, in 140+ degree temperature. The funny thing is they made more money working for us then the lawyers and doctors did downtown.

If this is true then my appologize for my ignorance. I hadn't personally looked into it too much but I did look to find out why he was over there and the most information I had found was that he was a civilian.

I guess this is a tad like the conversation in the movie "Clerks" about the roofer being offered a contract on the house of a mob boss. Despite the pay, he turned it down feeling that it was too risky. His friend then took the contract, and was killed his first day on the job due to an attempted hit on the mob boss. Workers who choose to take a possition in which there is a severe risk involved have to be ready for the worst to happen. It's different to be a solider and have to do whatever you are ordered to do, in this case he knew the risk of taking the job out there and he did so.

Yep...I agree. That was the difference. And I also think that he, being a jew, should have had the common sense to not walk into the hostile enemy's camp and actually think he could be protected. The soldiers over there are there for a hell of a reason, and their protection is with their comrades, instincts and weaponry. This guy was just an idiot...but that's what selflessness get you.I really thought it was just appalling that his father could live in America, and denounce the American government for not 'protecting' his silly son. Why not just send some crusaders with a big wooden cross! Hey! That's not a bad idea!

HS!Glory

_________________________
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger"Mark Twain

My answer to the question - should executions be televised: a simple 'no'.

As I see it, the main benefit of televised executions would be to act as a deterrent. Not only do I think it would not act as a deterrent but may make the situation worse.

Research with offenders has shown that the main deterrent factor is not the fear of 'punishment' but the fear of 'getting caught'. Criminals do not worry about the consequences of their actions in terms of what punishment they will receive, they are mainly afraid of the process of being caught. Therefore, having a serious punishment does not have a great effect. On top of which, most murders which count for the vast majority of death penalty offences are committed as crimes of anger, passion or desperation, as psychopathic killings or as well-planned murders. In the first of these instances, the consequences of sudden action are not foremost in the mind of the attacker, they are simply overwhelmed by the moment. Psychopathic killers by their very nature will not be rationally deterred, and in carefully planned murders, the killer will know there is a chance of being punished by death so will plan not be be caught. Whether or not they will be successful is irrelevant, the murder will not take place unless the planning killer feels they have a good enough chance of escape. They will also plan an escape more carefully for a more serious punishment and so it is more likely a killer will escape a crime with a punishment as serious as the death penalty.

Add to this the following ideas: The clearup rate for murder is under 20%, of which not all of these result in the death penalty. Now, for arguments sake we will look at smoking as if it were a crime. Of those who smoke, near enough all will have a much shorter life expectancy than those who don't. Smoking can therefore be equated to a crime with a near enough 100% conviction rate for which the penalty is death. And yet many, many people still smoke. If death is not a deterrent to smokers then why should it be for murderers who have less than 1/5 the chance of their actions resulting in death.

Now take the following example:An armed robber holds up a shop and something goes wrong. In desparation he shoots and kills the cashier. As must be the case if criminals do think about punishment as they are committing a crime (the underlying principle of deterrence), he then realizes that he has killed someone in cold blood, surrounded by witnesses and so will almost undoubtedly receive the death penalty. There are 10 other customers in the shop between him and escape and possibly police outside. He knows he will die so in a last deperate bid to escape the only thing to do id gun his way out, killing more people on the way. If that crime was to result in, for example, 10 years in prison then he would have reason to put down his gun and give himself up because there is light at the end of the tunnel so to speak.

Not only does the death penalty not work therefore, but televising it might make the situation worse. Death becomes an exciting spectacle rather than something to fear, making it even less of a deterrent. And who knows how many nuts out there might decide to get themselves on death row by mindless killing, just so they can be on tv.

As I see it, the death penalty does not work, and televising it - without even taking into account issues of corruption, can only make matters worse.

I guess this is a tad like the conversation in the movie "Clerks" about the roofer being offered a contract on the house of a mob boss. Despite the pay, he turned it down feeling that it was too risky. His friend then took the contract, and was killed his first day on the job due to an attempted hit on the mob boss. Workers who choose to take a possition in which there is a severe risk involved have to be ready for the worst to happen. It's different to be a solider and have to do whatever you are ordered to do, in this case he knew the risk of taking the job out there and he did so.

DatheR

ah a wonderful Kevin Smith analogy....

I believe the conversation between Dante and Randell started over Star Wars - Empire Strikes Back and the independant contractors that were on the "Death Star" for the rebuild..... it is true that any civilian contractors that take on such jobs are well aware of any risks involved and take the responsibility upon themselves.

I just thought this was an interesting way for you to make a point and bravo on the "Clerks" reference.

_________________________
Hail Satan !
George W.
_________________________________________
"There is a beast in man that should be exercised, not exorcised."-Dr. Anton Szandor LaVey